I feel like people should be allowed to unionize and collectively bargain over things like hours and compensation and benefits, if they so desire.

I also feel like, if someone does not want to be a part of a union, they should, in no way, be barred from getting a job on that basis alone.

I almost never see this position represented in conversations about unions, and since I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the subject, I assume I am missing something that makes it an unreasonable position... so could someone tell me what that is?

1. Cut money to a service.2. Service becomes so crappy that it's better to go private.3. GOP now has an excuse to kill it entirely.

3b. corporate ALEC members with skin in the game 'recommend' a legislative draft 3c. pseudo public servants shuffle a couple words and table it as theirs 3d. officials show gratitude to ALEC members for exceptional public service

China White Tea:I also feel like, if someone does not want to be a part of a union, they should, in no way, be barred from getting a job on that basis alone.

So why should they get the benefits of being in the union if they don't have to pay anything in? If they don't want to be in the union, fine, but they should then have to negotiate everything - pay, benefits, schedule - with the company themselves. And if that means the company is forced to give them a good package in order to compete with the union, that's fine. But if the company screws them over because they have no leverage, well, that's how it goes.

Mentat:And if that means the company is forced to give them a good package in order to compete with the union, that's fine. But if the company screws them over because they have no leverage, well, that's how it goes.

It's the same reason the state police union was the only union exempt in Wisconsin's dismantling of collective bargaining: IN CASE OF PUBLIC UPRISING, THE RICH ARE STILL PROTECTED BY THE POLICE THEY ESSENTIALLY PURCHASED, and I guess in this case they also wanted the fires set to their homes by the lynch mobs put out

Biological Ali:Somacandra: FTFA: If every public schoolteacher quit tomorrow, private schools, charter schools, and home-schooling would pick up the slack.

Yes, all of us will up and quit our jobs and suddenly become qualified primary and secondary teachers or just stay home and home-school. Its not like we need our jobs to pay actual bills.

Not to mention that this stupid argument applies as much to cops and firefighters as it does to teachers: "If every policeman in the country quit tomorrow, private security firms would pick up the slack!"

China White Tea:I feel like people should be allowed to unionize and collectively bargain over things like hours and compensation and benefits, if they so desire.

I also feel like, if someone does not want to be a part of a union, they should, in no way, be barred from getting a job on that basis alone.

I almost never see this position represented in conversations about unions, and since I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the subject, I assume I am missing something that makes it an unreasonable position... so could someone tell me what that is?

Why should labor and trade unions have prior restraints on contracting? Do you feel that it is unfair for companies to sign exclusive contracts for other sorts of supplies? Should the government step in with Right to Steel laws that hobble companies' ability to negotiate prices for iron and coke?

China White Tea:I almost never see this position represented in conversations about unions, and since I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the subject, I assume I am missing something that makes it an unreasonable position... so could someone tell me what that is?

FTFAIf every public schoolteacher quit tomorrow, private schools, charter schools, and home-schooling would pick up the slack.

Well, except for the couple to few million special-needs kids born to parents who can't afford either high-priced schools or staying home, that private/charter schools don't want to touch with a 50-foot-pole. But, y'know, fark them. That's what Jesus would say.

Mentat:BarkingUnicorn: Not because cops and firefighters have guns and axes but teachers do not?

It's the same divide and conquer strategy Walker tried in Wisconsin. Set the unions against each other, take out the public sector unions, take out the industrial unions, and then take out the police and firefighter unions last when there's no one left to support them.

First they came for the teachers union, and I didn't speak out because I'm not a teacher...

China White Tea:I feel like people should be allowed to unionize and collectively bargain over things like hours and compensation and benefits, if they so desire.

I also feel like, if someone does not want to be a part of a union, they should, in no way, be barred from getting a job on that basis alone.

I almost never see this position represented in conversations about unions, and since I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the subject, I assume I am missing something that makes it an unreasonable position... so could someone tell me what that is?

So much for collective bargaining if people can just opt out of the union and undercut the union workers.

Nobody is forcing anyone to join a union in most cases. But if you choose not to join, you still have to pay union dues as if you did. That is the issue in a nutshell. Michigan says that arrangement is not fair...that if you pay money you should get something in return. What to non-union members get in return for those payments? Nada. Oh sure, the union is quick to point out that they get the job. But the job is ultimately not the union's to give, it is the employer's. So the question of what the non-union worker gets from the union is still "nothing".

Don't get me wrong, I am not anti-union. Not at all! But I do think the one point this jumble-headed blogger makes correctly is that the union model is very badly broken. It has been for a long time, and it needs to be fixed very soon or unions will get shut down completely. The world is a vastly different place than it was 50 years ago, and the union model which worked for the benefit of the worker so well then is now almost completely counter-productive, and in some cases directly destructive. There needs to be union reform and total re-evaluation of its foundational principles, goals, and methodologies. They need to evolve, and quickly, if they want to be a part of the future in this country. If they don't, their days are numbered.

Peter von Nostrand:edmo: So if they're essential you make it illegal for them to strike thus who needs a union?

If the FD is a local of the IAFF they can't strike. Firefighters aren't a true union (it's International Association of Fire Fighters) since we don't have the power to strike. I would imagine PD is the same but I can't say that for certain

What the hell are you talking about? The IAFF is a union, regardless of the local chapters not being able to strike. It's a damn powerful lobbying organization too, which has resulted in the US having a crappy EMS system.

Balchinian:Tyee: No one should be forced to join or not to join a union.

Nobody is forcing anyone to join a union in most cases. But if you choose not to join, you still have to pay union dues as if you did. That is the issue in a nutshell. Michigan says that arrangement is not fair...that if you pay money you should get something in return. What to non-union members get in return for those payments? Nada. Oh sure, the union is quick to point out that they get the job. But the job is ultimately not the union's to give, it is the employer's. So the question of what the non-union worker gets from the union is still "nothing".

Don't get me wrong, I am not anti-union. Not at all! But I do think the one point this jumble-headed blogger makes correctly is that the union model is very badly broken. It has been for a long time, and it needs to be fixed very soon or unions will get shut down completely. The world is a vastly different place than it was 50 years ago, and the union model which worked for the benefit of the worker so well then is now almost completely counter-productive, and in some cases directly destructive. There needs to be union reform and total re-evaluation of its foundational principles, goals, and methodologies. They need to evolve, and quickly, if they want to be a part of the future in this country. If they don't, their days are numbered.

Well for starters they get better wages, benefits, healthcare, and pensions than they would have gotten if they had to negotiate the job in a vacuum. It is possible that they could currently negotiate for something on par now that the unions have done all the heavy lifting, but if the employee had to negotiate without the prior union negotiations then they would get nothing close to what can get through a union.

Balchinian:What to non-union members get in return for those payments? Nada. Oh sure, the union is quick to point out that they get the job. But the job is ultimately not the union's to give, it is the employer's. So the question of what the non-union worker gets from the union is still "nothing".

Nothing except the hard work of negotiating the pay and benefits that your free rider is now benefiting from.

naughtyrev:Wow, that article has a troll-tastic headline, and based on the author's bio, I'm sure he'd be a blast at parties. Also, he may want to try to make his book titles a little more varied.

Also, this gem: "Money was taken from their paychecks to fund political causes they vehemently detested." about his parents. So, it's bad when unions do it, but just fine when the company you works for gets tax breaks that you have to pick up the slack on while they lobby for more tax breaks or else they'll move jobs overseas. Alternatively, if you're say, anti-war, your taxes are still going to that war. But this doesn't occur to the author.

My thought about two sentences into the article was "wow, the Washington Times hires 8th graders as writers."

///no insult intended to you 8th graders reading this, I'm sure you do better than the Washington Times

bahamasorbust:Peter von Nostrand: edmo: So if they're essential you make it illegal for them to strike thus who needs a union?

If the FD is a local of the IAFF they can't strike. Firefighters aren't a true union (it's International Association of Fire Fighters) since we don't have the power to strike. I would imagine PD is the same but I can't say that for certain

What the hell are you talking about? The IAFF is a union, regardless of the local chapters not being able to strike. It's a damn powerful lobbying organization too, which has resulted in the US having a crappy EMS system.

Time and again, the GOP proves you don't need to posses critical thinking skills, know virtually anything, or have more intelligence than a sea cucumber in order to be elected to office or become a political or economic "expert." Clearly education is overvalued by the ivory tower elitists.

The real reason is that police and firefighter unions tend to contribute more to Republicans.

The International Association of Firefighters and the International Association of Fire Chiefs continually donate to democratic candidates and their campaigns. In fact, they pissed a lot of people off by endorsing Obama this time around.

/hate the IAFF, but for different reasons.//IAFF - Patient care and science mean jack shiat if we keep our jobs.///Not anti-fire union. Just anti-fire union stupidity.

People at my last job biatched about $30 a month in union dues. We would always point out that, at a direct result of the last negotiating cycle, they were taking home about $200 a month more than they would have otherwise, plus their kids were finally covered in the health plan. They still biatched about the $30.

Moral: when the middle class finally dies, it will kind of deserve it.

American public school teachers suck. We pay more per student on k-12 public schools and our reward is the world's most stupid children. By any measure American public school teachers suck ass. When they aren't doing their job, they're sexually abusing the children of hispanics because they know that their parents fear having the INS called. Then after sexually abusing their children, they blame the parents!

/"We teachers need more money to do a job that when we fail miserably at it will then claim we can't do it because the parents suck - while we make their kids suck us off!"

The point is that parents can do an equally good job teaching their kids about the ways of the world than teachers and often times can do a better job since teachers often push their own agendas in the class room instead of teaching the way the lord intended. The teacher may be useful for some lazy and godless parents who dont love their children but useful isn't the same thing as necessary.